On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:24:44PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You would be better served by a data structure different from a hashtable.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:09:37AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what better data structure do you have in mind for
> the dentry hash?
Per-directory indices of ->d_subdirs. Hash tries (spelled correctly)
and B+ trees hung off dentries corresponding to directories are
plausible. There are plenty of other possibilities; just do it on a
per-directory basis so you don't intermix children of different parents
in some boot-time -allocated global trainwreck and you're home free.
Benchmarking is probably needed to gauge which performs best.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
